The various aspects of Open Source
A funny thing that I just realized is that the term "open source" is generally used to denote several types of software. Without actually defining what "open source" means, I am thinking to several categories:
1) Hobby projects. These are projects started just for fun, from someone that writes a cool little app and wants to share it with everyone else.
2) Disruptive projects. Here we have a specific category of projects that are funded and maintained with help from (big) corporations, with the specific intention to disrupt other forms of commercial software (usually their competitors).
3) Pixie-dust projects. Here I put big, commercial projects that were morphed in an open source variation, as in an attempt to sprinkle the open source pixie dust to help them to remain competitive. Examples: Netscape (and probably Solaris?).
4) Sample code. This is a self-explanatory category, which is sometimes not considered "true" open source.
5) Shared source. This is also self-explanatory.
The interesting thing is that these categories are not clearly delimited. In fact, most open-source projects started as (1) and ended up in (2) like in the case of Linux. JBoss is another example.
[update]
By "disruptive" I meant the term explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
Comments
- Anonymous
May 26, 2005
Hello!
I came across your item on what constitutes 'Open Source' via a link on Groklaw (groklaw.net). I thought you might like to know that there is a thing called 'The Open Source Definition', which is promoted by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). This is usually what we Open Sourcers mean by 'Open Source' :-)
One thing to note, regarding your list of categories, is that 'shared source' (at least as Microsoft defines it, as I understand it) doesn't count as Open Source (as it doesn't meet all the criteria in The Open Source Definition).
Anyway, you can find the OSI website at
http://www.opensource.org/
and The Open Source Definition (with helpful annotations) at
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
:-)
Simon G Best - Anonymous
May 26, 2005
Another common misconception is that OpenSource means 'free'. It only states that the source is available, but says nothing about if you have to pay for the source. - Anonymous
May 26, 2005
I find it a little bit alarming that you categorize both Linux and JBoss as "disruptive". I would rather call them competitive or successful OS projects. Their aim and intent is not to disrupt commercial software but to successfully propose an alternative way of developing products. I see no reason why OS and Commercial software shouldn't be able to support and nurish each other. - Anonymous
May 27, 2005
RE:odegaard
Hmm... You and I seem to disagree on the meaning of Free as well.
Free in Open Source is equivalent to Freedom. The software does not have a licenses holding it back. This has nothing to do with paying money to "own" it. - Anonymous
May 27, 2005
"2) Disruptive projects. <snip> ...with the specific intention to disrupt other forms of commercial software (usually their competitors)."
Ahh, that explains the little problem with IE that results in Microsoft recommending that users uninstall Netscape 8.
All this time, who knew IE was an open-source project! - Anonymous
May 27, 2005
>> I find it a little bit alarming that you categorize both Linux and JBoss as "disruptive". I would rather call them competitive or successful OS projects. Their aim and intent is not to disrupt commercial software but to successfully propose an alternative way of developing products.
OK, I dind't mean that OSS is potentially disruptive in a negative sense. But more likely in the sense as explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
And, yes, I still believe that some companies use OSS in specifically that sense - to disrupt the traditional operating system market (Unix, Windows and others). The Unix market is the most affected, apparently.
But that is my personal theory only. - Anonymous
May 27, 2005
>> I came across your item on what constitutes 'Open Source' via a link on Groklaw (groklaw.net). I thought you might like to know that there is a thing called 'The Open Source Definition', which is promoted by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). This is usually what we Open Sourcers mean by 'Open Source' :-)
OK - note again that I specifically didn't define in that post what I meant by "Open source". I certainly don't agree with that other definition as it restricts a large quantity of existing freely-available source code (free as in beer). I don't even know if Community Server (http://www.communityserver.org/ - the software used to host this blog) fits that meaning of open source.
But anyway, you are right, probably I should have used a different, more general term that includes all the categories above (but with the same characteristic that the code is freely available - free as in beer, and NOT necessarily as free in speech). But I don't know what name I should choose for that...
[update - minor fixes] - Anonymous
May 27, 2005
"But more likely in the sense as explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology"
er.. hate to break the news to you, but neither Linux nor Java (which are not at all in the same category - unless MS is complaining about 'losing' business to them ;-)) fall under the definition found in the wiki (it refers to 'new technology' (& is also not considered to be a derogatory statement)). Altho some may say Java is new technology, it is really just another interpreted language.. different features.. different marketing push, but not new. Linux, of course, is not at all new technology. It is a Unix (according to the definition of 'Unix'). And, yes, MS is losing money to both.. but that is because they both are better at what they do than any MS product!
so.. Let me suggest a new category.
0) (programmer speak ;-)) - Software written to fulfill a need that the proprietary community refuses to fill (or even intentionally breaks).
Oh, Yes. Java is not open source. - Anonymous
May 27, 2005
>> er.. hate to break the news to you, but neither Linux nor Java [...] Oh, Yes. Java is not open source.
I think you missed my point.
First, note that I was talking about JBoss not Java. There is a big difference between them...
JBoss is an open-source application server that competes with other (commercial) J2EE application servers - in the same way as Linux (an open source operating system) competes with other commercial operating systems.
I view both JBoss and Linux as disrputive with respect to how they related with the business model of commercial software companies. That's all.
And, I agree, I don't think that either Linux or JBoss are disrputive due to technological advances :-) - Anonymous
May 28, 2005
"I view both JBoss and Linux as disrputive with respect to how they related with the business model of commercial software companies."
- I take it that you don't consider IBM, Novell or Redhat to be commercial software companies??
"And, I agree, I don't think that either Linux or JBoss are disrputive due to technological advances "
- Linux is superior in an implementation way.. it does something better. I take it you don't like for your favorite son to have any competition?? That is the only way that Linux & JBoss are 'disruptive'. Of course, if MS wishes to 'build a better mouse trap', it is free to do so...
Simply put, Linux is a better implememtation of a secure, stable, fast, flexible operating system then MS products. Since MS can't compete on value, they 'compete' with FUD.. basically, lies.
for starters, see here.. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1820693,00.asp?kc=EWYH104039TX1B0000665
and here.. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1818516,00.asp
The world is changing.. Once MS changed it.. now, someone else is. Just as DEC & others decried MS's changes.. so MS decries the changes it fears now. Some things never change... - Anonymous
May 29, 2005
Since this is turning into a trollfest, let me contribute. First anyone who thinks eweek as credible source of information and doesn't know "than" from "then" can't really be taken... Well you know.
If source isn't "free as in freedom" then I'll either call it open source or go by what license it uses "source under the GPL". You may call it whatever you like but better to include your definition/license with it. - Anonymous
May 29, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
You don't seem to understand what "Open Source" is all about so I'll explain it in simple words:
I love computers. I write programs. I give them for free to other computer lovers because I know they will love my programs and improve them (with the "source code" thingy).
You think software is about making huge amount of money. I believe that software is a tool that scientists can use to improve our world. Giving the source code is even better to those scientists.
But you're not a scientist, you don't really care about improving the world. - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
I'd love to know why you feel linux classifies as "Disruptive". A bunch of academics put together an operating system full of neat new ideas (but mostly neat OLD ideas), it becomes a platform for creative, amateur programs to try out ideas ("Gee, I always thought I could process scheduling a little better. But I'd have to write a whole OS from the ground up to test that theory. Unless.....")
And then, because some companies want to use this platform because of its efficiency (price, ease of adding onto, flexibility to target it to whatever wacky platforms they come up with), you decide its nothing more than "A Disruptive" project.
People dont use and work on linux to disrupt microsoft. The fact that it has disrupted microsoft is a testament to the value we have in our "hobby" programmers. - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
>> I'd love to know why you feel linux classifies as "Disruptive". [...] And then, because some companies want to use this platform because of its efficiency (price, ease of adding onto, flexibility to target it to whatever wacky platforms they come up with), you decide its nothing more than "A Disruptive" project.
Please note that I view Linux as being disruptive mainly for the old Unix market (to be read "Sun Microsystems"), and not especially for the Windows market (although it has an effect on both, I guess). - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
"Disruptive" to UNIX? It was one of the largest contributing factors that led to UNIX being with us in the 21st century. Thats not "disruptive", as a matter of fact, its the exact opposite. Perhaps you are talking about the fact that it may have taken some market share from those aging, underdeveloped, and severely uncreative UNIXes that hadn't really "innovated" anything in years. Thats called "Competition". Its amazing how capitalists will talk on and on about how our system brings out the creativity in people, but as soon as some competition comes along for one of our precious corporations, courtesy of the free software community, all these capitalists start talking about how "unamerican" and "disruptive" it is. Sorry hypocrite, in the world of logic, you lose! - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
>> Its amazing how capitalists will talk on and on about how our system brings out the creativity in people, but as soon as some competition comes along for one of our precious corporations, courtesy of the free software community, all these capitalists start talking about how "unamerican" and "disruptive" it is. Sorry hypocrite, in the world of logic, you lose!
You might want to check out the definition of the concept "disruptive technology" on whikipedia. There is nothing "bad" or "unamerican" there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
I think you're missing a category for big open source projects that aren't necessarily funded by big corporations or for disruptive purposes.
Linux was big before any corporation tried to use it for a business advantage. "Disruptive" also incompletely characterizes the motivations behind why a corporation might support an open source project. Sometimes it's because they actually use the software. - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
While I undertsand that you're using "disruptive" in the sense of "technology that disrupts the way a group does business", and that no negativity is necessarily implied, it's a both a poor choice of terminology and logically flawed.
Take Linux, for example. Linux started in the Hobby category, as you posit. Corporations adopted it for use, and I suppose in some sense it was "disruptive" to the big-money OS vendors. However, many corporations quickly adopted Linux as a sales platform and are contributing back to the community -- IBM, and Novell spring immediately to mind. This adoption happened long before Linux gained enough market share to disrupt (or even concern) the likes of MS and SCO.
So, from a logic perspective, I don't think Linux was a very good example of a disruptive use of the Open Source model. A better example might be Sun's opening of OpenOffice: a way for them to undercut MS's share of the Office market and promote their supported StarOffice product.
From a "good writing" perspective, you have to realized that a word like 'disruptive' (especially without a definition immediately near by) has negative connotations. Also, part of your target audience (OSS advocates) commonly hear terms like 'disruptive', 'socialist', and 'anti-competitive' used together by people who feel threatened by the idea of OpenSource or the Free Software movement. - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
>> From a "good writing" perspective, you have to realized that a word like 'disruptive' (especially without a definition immediately near by) has negative connotations.
Allright - I updated the post - I didn't intend this negative meaning. - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 03, 2005
I'm glad you cleared up the confusion about 'disruptive' (a term I use approvingly and positively to describe Linux, as well as proprietary software like Skype) but your post still needs major clarification about what you mean by 'open source'.
It would appear that you think anything that lets you read the source e.g. example code in a book or on a website can be, and is, called 'open source'. This is a ridiculous position for someone who claims to be a Software Engineer.
Your own company releases Open Source code as well as Free Software, and basically all of your competitors in various fields (from IBM, Sun and Novell through to Apple, Google, Nokia and Sony etc. etc.) are betting heavily on Open Source yet you don't even know what it is.
Please do yourself a favour and add another update pointing out that you are specifically using your own, rather obscure, definition of 'open source' and it has nothing to do with the generally accepted term as used by software professionals or the very precise OSI definition. At the moment your list just looks silly.
Where for example where would the MSFT-released Open Source and Free Software fit in your little taxonomy? (Just to be clear: I am not talking about Shared Source). - Anonymous
June 04, 2005
OpenOffice.org would be considered disruptive to MS Office. Ive dumped all MS Office suites now in favour of OO 2.0 :D - Anonymous
July 16, 2005
An interesting article from CNET.com confirms what I always thought of open source: The fact that you... - Anonymous
March 24, 2008
PingBack from http://caferestaurantsblog.info/antimail-the-various-aspects-of-open-source/